But what sort of "liberal arts" was it? Do they have knowledge of English and literature and culture? A good knowledge of these can form a good basis for a variety of non-technical positions.

Or was their liberal arts degree one of those ethnic/gender studies or other underwater basket-weaving type of courses that prepares them for absolutely nothing but teaching that same sort of course? And since those sort of departments tend (nowadays) to be refuges of hyper-offended political correctness, would bringing one of -those- grads aboard a company just lead to a culture of fear of harassment and discrimination lawsuits?

How about simply putting them in a jail cell with a computer terminal. Their task is to use their own network to go in and disinfect each and every last machine. They don't see the light of day again until they accomplish this task, and if it's longer than their lifetimes, so be it.

>Go to certain parts of this country and openly mock religion and let me know how that works out for you. There are several states where it is technically illegal for me to hold public office if I am an atheist.

FYI- that has been challenged and overturned in all states. You will still find it in the texts of several State Constitutions, but that's just because of the particular rules on when and how to update the text. It has no effect and when (and if) the text of those documents is updated, that change would be automatically made.

>That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. In the first place, how many people would rather watch porn than have sex?

As has been said several times and in different ways, there is most definitely a cost-benefit analysis going on, even if subconsciously.

You are right in that actual sex would probably be preferred by most people over porn. But when doing that analysis- seeing the relatively negligible costs for an inferior choice, over the quite significant potential costs for the alternative, can only serve to make that inferior choice more appealing. As the costs- emotional, social, legal, and financial- increase above a certain point, it will naturally cause a reaction toward porn. What is interesting is that people not part of the MGTOW crowd are actually starting to notice it.

The answer to these people is easy. Leave a phone number for a contact, and when they call to schedule, make one. Except just not at your house.

Do that every time they call, and maybe they'll get the message that this is a less-than-effective means of advertising. Technical solutions are great, but sometimes, the old-fashioned scam-baiting is the best.

Even worse than that, many of his stories had robots doing all kinds of crazy, counter-intuitive things which at first glance appeared to completely and totally violate the 3 laws! However, upon careful investigation, it turned out that the robots, from their perspective, were actually faithfully obeying them- thus calling into question whether such a simplistic set of rules can ever truly work as originally intended.

If the people who have unhealthy diet/lifestyle constitute a negative effect on the health care system, isn't it also true that they would prevent a positive effect on the Social Security/retirement system, since they are more likely to die sooner?

If we can presume to tax them for the degree they burden the health care system, shouldn't we credit/reward them for not requiring as many retirement payments as other people?

Of course kids are scared about global warming/climate change/whatever. For years now, it has been pushed on them relentlessly in the public schools. Remember that 'Captain Planet' environmental cartoon from years back, where every industrialist/capitalist was evil and had to be defeated? That was just the beginning. The level of outright propaganda that kids receive would make Goebbels smile.
And, of course, that is completely independent on whether or not there really -is- some sort of man-induced climate changes occurring, and to what degree. The sad thing is that -both- sides of this debate have become so hopelessly politicized, that its hard to tell just where the truth is.

Let's assume that we do dump even more billions into Africa, and make it sustainable agriculturally.
To the extent that the culture and technology has been raised there, what can the world expect from it? Would it be more of what we're seeing now?
What -have- we gotten for all the past aid, except massive amounts of fraud and corruption? Does the world really need a billion more 419 scammers?